Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492946 --- Comment #6 from Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-02 06:26:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Mat, > What do you think about dropping the gcj_support? > It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it. > And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch > packages and etc. I don't have a problem with dropping GCJ support. (Though I don't think it made the spec too much more complicated ;-) ) In these days of stronger, better, faster JDKs, are AOT bits desired in any Java package? If not, we probably ought to change the guidelines. [1] However, try this one on for size: Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.2.M5.fc10.src.rpm [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review